Legal humor. Seriously.

Lawmakers/Politicians

May 17, 2012

Ron Paul may have stopped "actively campaigning," but that doesn't mean his adventures are over. Far from it. Although so far he only has 98 delegates, he may be able to rack up a lot more between now and the convention by going out and seizing them, with your help, in the upcoming game "Ron Paul: The Road to REVOLution."

The Road to REVOLution is a sidescrolling platformer action/adventure game, reminiscent of console classics like Super Mario Brothers and Sonic the Hedgehog.

You play the role of Ron Paul and make your way across all 50 states collecting Gold (sound money) and Delegates.

The game is full of original artwork and gameplay mechanics. Indie Game Development at its finest, the game is designed, programmed, conceived, and produced by me, D.S. Williams.

Collect Delegates to ensure your seat as the President, collect Gold Coins to unlock branches of the Federal Reserve where you defeat bosses and progress your quest to end the Federal Reserve.

Features:

50+ Levels designed around each of the United States

13 Boss Fights representing each branch of the Federal Reserve and a Final Boss

Challenging puzzle-platformer element. There's no 'beating up monsters until they're dead' aspect. You must guide the baddies through each level.

bonus unlockable characters

The game will be free to play in your browser.

This is potentially awesome. Having the boss fights be against branches of the Federal Reserve is pure genius, as far as I'm concerned. From the description I'm a little concerned that there won't be enough violence, but the graphic above gives me some hope. I'm also looking forward to finding out who the "bonus unlockable characters" will be -- I'm guessing members of the Austrian School of economics. You heard it here first.

The project more than met its funding goal of $5,000 ($11,073 was pledged). The game is expected to be finished in July, just in time to help Paul come up with the 1,100 or so delegates he still needs in order to get the nomination.

February 28, 2012

It appears that, on reflection, the Wyoming House of Representatives has decided the risk of invasion by its neighbors is remote enough that it can do without its own armed forces for now, and in particular does not need to consider whether an aircraft carrier might come in handy. I was informed, I think by Rep. Brown himself, that the bill was "defeated on third reading and exists no more."

Sadly, that is indeed the case. Turns out this bill had a very short lifespan, having been introduced just a couple of weeks ago. It did pass an initial vote (43-17), although that may be pretty common. But trouble appeared on the 24th, when the amount appropriated was cut in half. The armed-forces amendment was adopted just yesterday (Feb. 27), but appears to have been deleted by a later amendment, either later in the day or this morning. Even without the aircraft-carrier language, though, the bill itself failed today on the third reading, though only by three votes (27-30), with three abstaining (or "excused") from the vote.

Note that I do check these things out; if I was off on this one, it was only by a few hours (and even if I was, it was still worth reporting).

Rep. Brown was not a sponsor of the bill, although he does seem to have voted for it on the first reading; he later offered the aircraft-carrier amendment, and then voted against the whole thing today. So, although he hasn't confirmed it yet, it does look like he may be one of those relatively rare legislators with both a sense of humor and the will to express it in a piece of legislation (which he knew would be deleted). It's nice to be able to get humor out of a legislature this way for once.

January 30, 2012

"You buried the lead" in last week's post about Sen. Ralph Shortey, a reader pointed out to me, and he was right. Given that Shortey's proposed ban on the use of "aborted human fetuses" in food or food research is specifically limited to products "intended for human consumption," it would appear that the senator does not have a problem with turning the miracle of birth into animal chow, and I, for one, am outraged.

Mostly at myself for not noticing this first, but also partly because of the fetus thing.

The Los Angeles Times managed to get an interview with Shortey last week, one of the few he seems to have given. According to its report, the bill was one of 70 filed on Shortey's behalf on the previous Thursday, which was the deadline for introducing legislation in that session. (The bill was actually filed by an assistant, who also drafted it for the senator's review, although unlike the subject matter this is pretty common.) Shortey then apparently left town, speaking to the Times on Monday "after returning from tending to family matters and a weekend quail hunt" to find his phone ringing off the hook and about 400 emails in his inbox, much of it not too friendly.

He stuck by his story, though, such as it is. "Are fetuses being chopped up and put in our Doritos? No," he said. (Last week he was using "burritos" in that line -- the Times might have misheard him or maybe they focus-grouped it over the weekend.) But, he said, he does think somebody may be using human embryonic stem cells in some sort of food research. And if that somebody is doing something with something like that in some sort of research somewhere, whatever that is better not be going on anywhere in Oklahoma.

And again, it isn't, as far as anybody knows. The FDA told the Associated Press it had "never gotten any reports of fetuses being used in food production," although that could just be part of the coverup. Shortey claimed he had "done some digging" on this before deciding to ban it, and since he didn't explain further, that probably means the Internet. No, wait: "Asked if he believes everything he reads on the Internet," the Times reported, Shortey replied, "Absolutely not."

Two of the innocent lives Ralph Shortey could care less about

That's good, because despite my headline I don't actually think he intended to encourage feeding human fetuses to livestock. That would run contrary to the deep respect he shows for tiny, innocent living things, which he demonstrated by blasting a bunch of them into oblivion over the weekend. But that inference could be drawn from the language of his bill. If a law prohibitedthe use of human fetuses only in products "intended for human consumption," then one could argue that the legislature must not have intended to prohibit tossing a few into animal feed, or using them in any non-edible product, for that matter. That would be a logically valid though entirely stupid argument. In fact, one could argue that the sloppy language might unintentionally "encourage" some unscrupulous fetus-wrangler to go down this horrifying path. Only two ways to deal with that, it seems to me -- either withdraw the bill altogether, or amend it to make the ban even broader. I wonder which he will do.

He is apparently not to be deterred by the past week's mockery, even appearing to suggest it was partly motivated by political opposition. "The first attack," he said, "is to make that issue or person look ridiculous." (Check.) But "I've got thick skin," he continued. "I don't care what people think about me." That's also good. Still, he did seem a little miffed that people are talking about it. "This was an invitation to my colleagues to have this discussion," he told the Times. "This wasn't an open invitation for the country to chime in." How dare you discuss proposed legislation, America?

FYI, the country (or certain members of it) have signed up to receive email alerts to track the future progress of the bill, if any, and may have plans to chime in again.

January 09, 2012

State Rep. Scott Holcomb (D-Atlanta) may or may not be serious about this proposal, but given some of the other stuff that legislatures have done, mandatory drug testing of legislators prior to any vote might not be a bad idea.

Holcomb said his bill was a response to HB 668, which would require anyone applying for state assistance, and any other adults in that family, to take drug tests. Failing would mean denial or loss of benefits. A federal judge in Florida enjoined a similar law last year, finding the requirement was an unreasonable suspicionless search under the Fourth Amendment. According to the order, while the Florida law was in effect, the percentage of welfare recipients who had tested positive (two to five percent) was significantly lower than the percentage of illegal drug use in the general population (said to be about eight percent, allegedly).

Holcomb's bill, HB 677, would require anyone elected to serve in the General Assembly to undergo mandatory drug testing within three months of taking office or beginning any subsequent term. Failing would mean removal from office. "[W]e should lead by example," Holcomb said, and "shouldn't expect others to live by standards that we don't uphold ourselves." Holcomb insisted he was optimistic about his bill's chances, although my guess is he's probably aware of the solid GOP majority in the Georgia Legislature, which should ensure that nobody there is getting drug-tested anytime soon.

Just in case, though, his bill provides that it would take effect in July 2012 and would apply only "to members of the General Assembly elected on or after such date." Notice that it doesn't say "re-elected" on or after such date. But maybe it's just a coincidence that it arguably would not apply to him even if it did pass.

This is not an entirely new idea - in 2008, there were calls for periodic breath-testing of members of Australia's parliament, after a series of incidents in which drunken MPs engaged in embarrassing shenanigans (or whatever the equivalent Australian term is). Which gives me an excuse to mention one of my favorite legislative quotes, uttered by then-Premier Nathan Rees, explaining why he had asked a minister to resign: "I subsequently put it to former minister Brown late last night," he said, "that there are 'too many reports of you in your underwear to ignore.'"

January 04, 2012

While most people were getting ready for New Year's, President Obama was happily signing the National Defense Authorization Act (as Jonathan Turley discusses here). As you may recall, the NDAA contains a hilarious provision that requires anyone accused of terrorism to be detained by the military until the "War on Terror" is over - currently scheduled for never - except that this is not required for U.S. citizens detained in the United States. It's optional, you see, so nothing at all to worry about. See "Whoa, Did Something Die in Here? Oh, It Was Freedom," Lowering the Bar (Dec. 6, 2011).

Well, he wasn't entirely happy with the bill. In a "signing statement" - something else he opposed when he was running for president - he said he was signing it "despite having serious reservations with certain provisions that regulate the detention, interrogation, and prosecution of suspected terrorists." Aha - he DOES care about our rights, is something you might say if you then stopped reading. He continued, "my Administration has developed an effective, sustainable framework for the detention, interrogation and trial of suspected terrorists that allows us to maximize both our ability to collect intelligence and to incapacitate dangerous individuals ... and the results we have achieved are undeniable. Our success ... has derived in significant measure from providing our counterterrorism professionals with the clarity and flexibility they need ... and to utilize whichever authorities best protect the American people ...." That's it.

In other words, his "reservations" stem from concerns that the bill may infringe on his own authority, not because he cares whether you rot in jail without a trial. That's consistent with the revelation that the White House actually insisted there not be an exception for citizens, back when the NDAA was oozing through Congress. So, that's super.

There was a debate over whether there should be such an exception, as I also wrote about in more detail. See "You Say 'Indefinite Military Detention of Citizens' Like It's a Bad Thing," Forbes.com (Dec. 7, 2011). Senator Feinstein offered an amendment that would have established one, which was promptly rejected 55-45. Her Plan B, which did pass, was a provision saying that the intent was not to change existing law, but because a majority of senators apparently already think it's okay to detain U.S. citizens indefinitely, that is not too comforting.

Various sources now report that Feinstein has introduced a bill (with some bipartisan support) that would try again to sort of create an exception for citizens who may be detained here at home. The "Due Process Guarantee Act of 2011" - and here I had been thinking due process was already guaranteed - would amend the NDAA to say that

An authorization to use military force, a declaration of war, or any similar authority shall not authorize the detention without charge or trial of a citizen or lawful permanent resident of the United States apprehended in the United States, unless an Act of Congress expressly authorizes such detention.

Sounds great! Until you get to that last clause. What's that all about? Well, Feinstein calls it a "'clear-statement rule' that requires Congress to expressly authorize detention authority" when it comes to U.S. citizens. Okay, but, see, that doesn't "guarantee due process" (or Sixth Amendment rights). In fact, it suggests that even Feinstein thinks Congress can just take it away, as long as it clearly says that's what it's doing, instead of sneaking around like it's been doing. So that is not making me feel much better.

I understand that it is almost impossible for Congress to say anything clearly, but I'm still not willing to risk it.

December 30, 2011

I am signing SB 769, which allows for a dead mountain lion to be stuffed and displayed.

This presumably important bill earned overwhelming support [from] both Republicans and Democrats.

If only that same energetic bipartisan spirit could be applied to creating clean energy jobs and ending tax laws that send jobs out of state.

Sincerely,

[Gov.] Edmund G. Brown Jr.

Mountain lions are "specially protected mammals" under California law, meaning it is ordinarily a crime to "take, injure, possess, transport, import, or sell" one. The bill, which in fact passed without a single dissenting vote, creates an exception allowing one to possess the carcass of said mammal if preparing it for display, exhibition or storage for a bona fide scientific or educational purpose.

Nothing wrong with that, really; but maybe it was the designation of this as an "urgency statute" that put Jerry over the edge:

SEC. 3. This act is an urgency statute necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, or safety within the meaning of Article IV of the [state] Constitution and shall go into immediate effect. The facts constituting the necessity are:

In order to allow the display, exhibition, or storage of mountain lion carcasses or parts or products thereof for a bona fide scientific or educational purpose as soon as possible, it is necessary that this act take effect immediately.

Emphasis added. Apparently the state's many taxidermists have been threatening to riot unless the threat of an unfair lion-stuffing prosecution was lifted at once. The facts supporting this conclusion are: this won't be lawful immediately unless the law making it lawful takes effect immediately.

December 15, 2011

I guess I should say right up front that there is no evidence that British MP Aidan Burley actually wore an SS uniform himself, or that he joined in the toast to "the ideology and thought process of the Third Reich" or the chants of "Eichmann! Eichmann! Eichmann!" Nor does this report in the Guardian suggest that he knew this would be a Nazi-themed stag party when he decided to attend. Still, I thought I'd post this as a reminder to aspiring politicians that if any Nazi, let alone Adolf Eichmann, is praised in your presence, it's probably a good idea to get up and note your objection for the record.

Burley reportedly attended a bachelor party recently at a ski resort in the Alps, along with 12 friends who, at best, have an odd sense of humor. Alcohol was certainly involved, but while alcohol can make you say stupid things you don't mean, I really don't see it justifying a call for "three cheers for Hitler" (also "Fuhrer," "Himmler," and yes, even "Eichmann"). And putting on an SS uniform is not something you just do on a whim, like putting a lampshade on your head. That takes some planning.

Burley, who "was said to be standing a few feet away" but "was not seen to object" during the Hitler-praising, apologized through his Twitter account on Sunday after the Nazi party (small p) came to light:

@aidanburleymp: Deeply regret inappropriate behaviour by some guests at Stag party I attended and i am extremely sorry for any offence that was caused.

That's the standard formulation for such apologies, of course, namely using the passive voice to avoid assigning responsibility and make it seem like the unpleasantness just "happened." See "TSA Settles With Woman Whose Top Was Pulled Down," Lowering the Bar (June 8, 2011) (TSA spokesperson: "We regret that the passenger had an unpleasant experience."); "Filing Instructions Too Hard, Says Supreme Court Justice," Lowering the Bar (Jan. 26, 2011) (Justice Thomas: "It has come to my attention that information ... was inadvertently omitted due to a misunderstanding of the filing instructions.")

The difference here, of course, is that Burley did not personally do anything wrong, so far as we know, and may just have been using the passive voice out of habit. Why not say "My friends did something utterly stupid and I should have objected and was wrong not to do so, and also I hate the Nazis"? That seems a lot more respectable and it still fits in 140 characters.

Burley's idiot friends could actually be prosecuted for this, since French law makes it a crime to wear or exhibit Nazi stuff in public unless it is for a film or something like that. That'd be unconstitutional in the U.S. (unless maybe you were trying to incite a riot), though still idiotic.

December 07, 2011

After my post the other day noting the apparent death of freedom, someone wrote me to say that if I looked at Senate Amendment 1456, I would see that I was wrong to be concerned. I was wrong once in the 1990s, and I can't say I enjoyed finding that out, but I went to go look at this anyway.

I don't think I was wrong this time.

I also decided, though, that the full explanation was not amusing enough to post here, and in fact would have been kind of depressing had I not given up hope long ago. So if you want to learn more about your former freedom and the role of the mysterious Senate Amendment 1456, you must go read my post, "You Say 'Indefinite Military Detention of Citizens' Like It's a Bad Thing," over at Forbes.com.

What seems more appropriate to post here is something else I noticed, I think on the same day, namely an apparent visit from someone in Romania (or using the Romanian version of Google, anyway) who had Googled for advice on whether lap-dancing is legal:

I am inexplicably proud of the fact that in the search result on this topic, at least as translated into Romanian, Lowering the Bar was second only to Wikipedia. And take that, Legal Blog Watch, which came in third.

And now that I've managed to work "indefinite military detention" and "lap-dancing" into the same post, I might as well call it a day.

December 06, 2011

While you weren't looking, those hilarious pranksters in Congress passed the National Defense Authorization Act, which among other things authorizes the military to detain U.S. citizens arrested in this country "without trial until the end of the hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force," meaning until the "War on Terror" is over, meaning never.

I don't want you to think your representatives took a collective dump on the Sixth Amendment without talking it over first, because they did debate a little before voting to end the Republic. In particular, they discussed whether the indefinite-military-detention provision really applied to citizens, because it wasn't clear as drafted. Seems like it would have been pretty easy to make clear that it didn't apply to citizens if that's what you wanted, maybe by adding something like, "the authority granted by this section shall not extend to American citizens," but I'm no legislator. Your Supreme Court has held that it is okay to detain a citizen forever if arrested overseas, you may recall, and if you enjoyed that then you'll love this bill, which extends that to citizens arrested in the U.S. That is, as Lindsay Graham conceded on the Senate floor, this bill makes the homeland a "battlefield" where the laws of war apply.

Under Section 1031 of the bill, the military is authorized to detain "covered persons" under the law of war, and you are "covered" if you were connected to 9/11 or have "substantially supported" anybody who was. Under 1031(c), a covered person may be held indefinitely. The debate was over 1032, "Requirement for Military Custody," which required that detainees be held by the military (as 1031 authorized). Did that cover citizens, some cared enough to ask? The end result was that 1032(b) now provides that "[t]he requirement to detain a person in military custody ... does not extend to citizens of the United States." Feel better? Don't. All that says is that military detention isn't required. It's still authorized.

But wait, you say, I'm not a "covered person" because I'm not a terrorist and I totally think 9/11 sucked. Well, of course I believe you, but how will you prove that, person in military custody? At your trial? I see. Well, you can either have a military tribunal now or a trial when the War on Terror is over. In America we give you the freedom to choose!

Finally, this is not about trusting the military (which may not even want this power) or the government not to make you disappear. It's about the fact that some dudes spent a lot of time in July in a room that wasn't even air-conditioned to write up a constitution, the point of which I thought was to emphasize the idea that we shouldn't have to trust the government - we follow the rule of law. I like Ben Franklin too much to think he sweated for nothing. (And you know he sweated like a pig.)

Speaking of constitutions, the Sixth Amendment says this:

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed ... and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Emphasis added. They weren't too good at capitalization but they got a lot of other things right.

November 10, 2011

Apparently this person still has what in olden times was called a "land line," because obviously he could not have used his iPhone yesterday to report that his iPhone was broken. Although, since alcohol was (unsurprisingly) involved in this incident, maybe it actually wasn't broken. Or maybe he forgot his passcode, and so 911 was the only number it would let him call. Regardless, it is still true that a broken smartphone is not an "emergency."

On the morning of October 24, the mayor of Toronto called 911 when a woman ran at him yelling "We've got you, Rob Ford, we got you!" as he was leaving for work. That would be scary, but less so if she is accompanied by a TV cameraman and is dressed like this.

The woman was Mary Walsh, from the CBC comedy show This Hour Has 22 Minutes, which reportedly specializes in ambushing politicians. Sort of like Michael Moore does down here, although unfortunately he does not dress up the same way. Walsh is no longer on the show but does return for special surprises, such as a visit to a Sarah Palin book signing in 2009.

Mayor Ford justified the 911 call by noting that he is a public figure, has received death threats in recent months, and that he "had no idea who was coming at him" in his driveway. Again, some initial concern is understandable, but not a 911 call unless you really think you've been attacked by a female assassin dressed like a Roman centurion who brought her own cameraman.

A spokesman for the CBS said Walsh only wanted to ask Ford some questions about his mustache.